> It breaks the ABI and existing apps that *do* handle BUSY replies. We can't > assume that no apps out there aren't written correctly.
I could be wrong, but I couldn't find a single example in the OFED 1.5.2 package. -----Original Message----- From: Hefty, Sean [mailto:sean.he...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:58 PM To: Todd Rimmer; Mike Heinz; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; Roland Dreier; Jason Gunthorpe; Hal Rosenstock Subject: RE: Update proposal for handling BUSY responses from the SA/SM > Coding IB applications is hard enough, let's not require it to be harder. > We need a solution that fixes all the apps and makes it easy for future > applications to have a sensible default behavior. The mad interface is privileged, not some generic API available to any user space app. > I think Mike's approach does that, minimizes risk, addresses 3rd party apps > which may not be part of OFA, and has a path toward allowing sophisticated > applications to control the behavior (few if any apps will really want to > do that). It breaks the ABI and existing apps that *do* handle BUSY replies. We can't assume that no apps out there aren't written correctly. - Sean -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
